For me, it is more important that whether the strategy is working or will it work at all. It is not only an American war, but NATO war. No need to have a Rolling Stone interview, just read the newspaper worldwide. No one believes it is working. For me, comtempt or not, it is less important.

They will certainly say it's his fault, but it's a question of how sensible it will sound to voters. Some critics have claimed that his request that BP put money into trust for payment of claims is government encroachment in the oil industry, but while that may fire up the base, few moderate voters are interested in hearing apologias for BP right now. A dispute between the president and the military command will have more traction.

@Michaelin

I sometimes wish we had limited ourselves to a punitive campaign in 2001.

A number of people have called for McChrystal to be sacked, citing the example of Truman's sacking of MacArthur (what is it with Scottish generals?). Should Obama really do this though? Truman was a decorated WWI vet, and VP and President during WWII, which included dropping atomic bombs. Accusations of weak-kneed liberalism probably did not stick as well.

Even with this background though, his dismissal of MacArthur led to a steep drop in his popularity and calls for his impeachment. Given that the consensus is that in July of 2011 it will be safe to declare our Afghan surge a failure, does Obama really want to supply his critics with the talking point that this failure is his fault? If the remainder of his presidency is a steady steam of casualties from Central Asia and a rising tide of federal debt with no progress in either the war or the unemployment figures, a second term is looking far-fetched. One thing that is certain is that this is definitely not a fight that Obama needed.

The real problem is that Americans aren't pragmatic. We are still hapless idealists, from the very founding of our nation. Both conservatives and liberals have big, big dreams, and both fall extremely short of their dreams in practice. This has extended into our manifest destiny, military history, political machinations, economic system of debt consumption, etc.

I offer a third alternative, that McChrystal is deliberately providing Obama an opportunity to change direction in Afghanistan - with White House concurrence before he and his staff made the remarks reported in the Rolling Stone.

It's all just too well timed, sufficiently apparently naive, and for gods sake the Rolling Stone of all outlets. Stan's falling on his sword because his policy failed. How else could he admit failure while also giving his commander-in-chief strategic latitude and political cover?

To be clear: I should say his staff can't have this attitude that it's the president's fault or the American people's fault for not wanting to give them more money and more time. McChrystal himself doesn't seem to have made comments to this effect.

@FormerRepublican: "For COIN to be successful, the locals (and Pakistanis in this case) must know you are there 'forever'."

Unfortunately you need to remove the quotes around the word forever. The locals aren't stupid. To convince them you're going to be there forever, you need to actually be willing to be there forever. And we're not. We don't have the money and we don't care enough. In fact, we're pretty much willing to be there through July 2011. No promise from zombie Ronald Reagan or anybody else that we intend to remain there longer is credible. Had McChrystal answered that the full COIN mission couldn't be achieved with a July 2011 deadline, the response might have been, in that case let's stick with the minimal drones and counter-terrorism strategy. But he said it could be done. If it can't, he was wrong, and he needs to take responsibility for that. It's not the worst thing in the world to have been wrong, but he can't run around blaming the president or the American people for lacking the "will" to do something they clearly told him they weren't willing to do in the first place.

Jaylat, you make an excellent point that the major weakness of this post was how it entirely consisted of talking about Obama and how this war was not his responsibility at all and ergo he should not be held accountable for it. It would have been better if sparkleby had talked about something else entirely; for example, he could have brought up another major figure involved in the war that has made headlines lately, and drawn a thorough assessment of his or her actions with specific attention to where he agrees and disagrees with them.

I'm going to piggyback on Mr Quodomine's comments and venture that Rolling Stone has not been serious political journalism for quite some time, if ever. Though I agree in spirit with its basic political leanings, I view it as just a source for the occasional sensationalist rant from the far left with little grounding in reality. It was foolish of General McChrystal to give them access to his team in the first place.

I'd strongly second Martin's strong seconding of my homonym for all the reasons given. Under Bush, I suspected that Mr. Commander Guy told top brass what to request and graciously complied. There's no reason to think Mr. Open Hand doesn't follow the same protocol.

Given the importance of civilian control of the military, and given the (quite proper and necessary) unwillingness of the military to countenance insubordination, McCrystal has to go. (See Truman and MacArthur.) His offering his resignation may get him out of being formally fired. But go he will -- nothing less is viable.

Why would the Afghans believe us now ? We made them promises in the '80s, and abandoned them to chaos after the Soviets withdrew. We promised, and abandoned them again after the Taliban were driven out. What would you do ? Would you trust the US and its corrupt stooge ?

I strongly second Doug374: The line from the Bush Administration about Iraq from 2003 to 2006 was always, "I give my commanders what they ask for," and the military brass would respond, "We have what we need."

Winter of 2006, Bush says we need more troops in Iraq, and the brass agrees. Turns out, we did need more troops (Guess that Shinseki guy wasn't an annoying worry wart after all).

Anyways, I have no doubt that McChrystal wished he had more resources from the U.S. and more reliable allies (of both the European and Afghan varieties). Nonetheless, I'm positive President Obama asked McChrystal if he thought he could accomplish the mission with the resources Obama was willing to commit. I also have no doubt that McChrystal said he did think it was possible. So it's up to McChrystal to demonstrate that he was right. (And yes, because President Obama appointed McChrystal, he shares blame for McChrystal's failure if it comes to that).